IMAGERY, FAMILIARITY, AND COMPREHENSIBILITY
EFFECTS IN MEMORY FOR SIMPLE FACTUAL
SENTENCES.
Item type
text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors
Stempski, Mark Owen, 1952-
Publisher
The University of Arizona.
Rights
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this
material is made possible by the University Libraries,
University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction
or presentation (such as public display or performance) of
protected items is prohibited except with permission of the
author.
Downloaded
19-Sep-2016 06:59:05
Link to item
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/275068
INFORMATION TO USERS
This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming.
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce
this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the
quality of the material submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or
notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This
may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages
to assure complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an
indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure,
duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For
blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If
copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in
the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed,
a definite method of "sectioning" the material has been followed. It is
customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to
continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary,
sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on
until complete.
4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic
means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted
into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best
available copy has been filmed.
University
Microfilms
International
300 N. Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
1323222
STEMPSKI, MARK OWEN
IMAGERY, FAMILIARITY, AND COMPREHENSIBILITY EFFECTS IN
MEMORY FOR SIMPLE FACTUAL SENTENCES
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
University
Microfilms
International
300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106
M.A.
1984
IMAGERY, FAMILIARITY, A N D COMPREHENSIBILITY
EFFECTS I N MEMORY FOR SIMPLE FACTUAL SENTENCES
by
Mark Owen Stenpski
A Thesis Submitted t o the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
I n Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
I n the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
19 8 4
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced
degree a t the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library t o be made
available t o borrowers under the rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided
that accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Requests for permission for extended
• quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the
head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment
the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. I n all other instances,
however, permission must be obtained from the author.
SIGNED:
APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR
This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:
Professor of Psychology
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES
iv
ABSTRACT
v
1 . INTRODUCTION.
1
2 . METHOD.
.
8
Subjects.
Design.
Materials.
Procedure,
8
8
8
9
3 . RESULTS . . .
12
Sentence Ratings
Recall Scores
12
12
4 . DISCUSSION
16
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
2b
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1 . Low familiarity-low imagery sentences
20
2 . Low familiarity-high imagery sentences
21
3 . High familiarity-low imagery sentences
22
4 . High familiarity-high imagery sentences
23
5 . Cell means for sentence ratings
24
6 . Correlation matrix for sentence ratings and recall
25
7 . Regression analysis for subjects' recall
.
8 . Regression analysis for subjects' recall
26
27
iv
ABSTRACT
This
s t u d y was p e r f o r m e d t o assess t h e e f f e c t s o f
f a m i l i a r i t y , and comprehens i b i I i t y
subjects
rated 60
factual
f a m i l i a r i t y . The s u b j e c t s
familiarity,
incidental
for
sentences
simple factual
thought
to vary
r a t e d e a c h s e n t e n c e as
and comprehens i b i I i t y . S u b j e c t s w e r e
imagery,
sentences. Sixty
i n i m a g e r y and
to its
imageabi I i t y ,
then given a
cued
r e c a l l t a s k . The r e s u l t s show t h a t t h e r a t i n g s f o r f a m i l i a r i t y
and i m a g e r y w e r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o r r e l a t e d . The a p r i o r i m a n i p u l a t i o n o f
imagery and f a m i l i a r i t y was n o t v a l i d a t e d by s u b j e c t s ' r a t i n g s . U s i n g a
m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n t e c h n i q u e , i t was
familiarity
significantly
predicted
found that
subjects'
r a t e d i m a g e r y and
recall. However,
the
v a r i a n c e a c c o u n t e d f o r by t h e s e v a r i a b l e s a r e q u i t e l o w . Suggestions
regarding
improvements
Theoretical accounts of
for
this
type
of
research
are
the findings are also discussed.
v
offered.
INTRODUCTION
Perhaps
the strongest
v a r i a b l e i n f l u e n c i n g memory
for
verbal
m a t e r i a l s i s i m a g e r y v a l u e , t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h an i t e m can b e v i s u a l l y
i m a g i n e d . The e f f e c t
remembered b e t t e r
of
imagery
is
that
high
i m a g e ry m a t e r i a l s
are
than low imagery materials. In fact, imagery value
appears to be far more important than variables that are more directly
related to the properties of
word frequency or
t h e t o - b e - r e m e m b e r e d m a t e r i a l s , such as
a s s o c i a t i o n v a l u e . T h i s d i s c r e p a n c y has p r o d u c e d a
l i v e l y d e b a t e e x t e n d i n g o v e r many y e a r s .
Several
t h e o r e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s have been advanced t o account
f o r i m a g e r y e f f e c t s i n memory. P a i v i o ' s d u a l - c o d e h y p o t h e s i s ( 1 9 7 1 , 1 9 7 8 ,
1983)
is perhaps
.explanations
the oldest
have
been
explanation
offered.
Kieras
for
imagery effects. Other
(1978)
discusses
several
a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n s i n t e r m s o f e x i s t i n g p r o s e memory t h e o r i e s . One
e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t memory f o r h i g h I m a g e r y s e n t e n c e s i s b e t t e r o w i n g t o
h i g h i m a g e r y s e n t e n c e s b e i n g m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i b l e . So t h a t , t h e s e m a n t i c
representation of
t h e s e n t e n c e c o n t e n t i s d e r i v e d and s t o r e d m o r e e a s i l y .
A second e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t h i g h i m a g e r y m a t . e r i a l i s remembered b e t t e r
because o f
the greater
configural
content
availability of
will
result
in
perceptual
better
descriptions with
integrated
memory
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . I t may a l s o be t h e c a s e t h a t h i g h i m a g e r y s e n t e n c e
meanings a r e encoded u s i n g p r e e x i s t i n g p e r c e p t u a l d e s c r i p t i o n s . Imagery
e f f e c t s c o u l d t h e n be due t o c o n c r e t e c o n c e p t s h a v i n g a g r e a t e r number
of
such h i g h e r
level
encodings
available in
1
the
form of
perceptual
2
descriptions
relative to abstract
concepts.
Currently, there is still
much d e b a t e c o n c e r n i n g t h e e f f e c t o f I m a g e r y m a n i p u l a t i o n s o n s e n t e n c e
memory. (Anderson, 1 9 7 8 ; Anderson, 1 9 8 3 ; P y l y s h y n , 1 9 7 9 ; Y u i l l e , 1 9 8 3 ) .
The b a s i c p a r a d i g m t h a t h a s b e e n e m p l o y e d i n a s s e s s i n g i m a g e r y
e f f e c t s i n v e s t i g a t e s memory f o r m a t e r i a l s s e l e c t e d on t h e b a s i s o f r a t e d
a t t r i b u t e s o f s i n g l e w o r d s such as nouns, a n d c o m p l e t e s e n t e n c e s . T h e
c l a s s i c and m o s t s e m i n a l s t u d y u s i n g t h i s a p p r o a c h was done by P a i v i o ,
Yuille,
and M a d i g a n ( 1 9 6 8 ) . They
conc r e t e n e s s ,
ability of
had
subjects
rate
925
imagery and meaningf u I n e s s . I m a g e r y was
the word to arouse a nonverbal
defined in terms of
the directness of
w h i l e m e a n i n g f u l n e s s was
defined
in
nouns
for
d e f i n e d as
the
i m a g e . C o n c r e t e n e s s was
t h e w o r d t o sense e x p e r i e n c e ,
terms
of
t h e mean number
of
a s s o c i a t i o n s made t o t h e w o r d i n 3 0 seconds.
Subsequent
studies
have
verified
the
reliability
of
Paivio
e t . a l . ' s r a t i n g s . Elmes and Thompson, ( 1 9 7 6 ) , u s i n g a m a g n i t u d e e s t i m a t i o n
p r o c e d u r e , f o u n d t h a t t h e i r r a t i n g s o f nouns a g r e e d w i t h t h o s e o b t a i n e d
by P a i v i o e t . a l . ( 1 9 6 8 ) . W i t h r e g a r d t o o t h e r s e n t e n c e components, B e r r i a n ,
M e t z l e r , K r o l I , and C l a r k - M e y e r s ( 1 9 7 9 ) h a v e p u b l i s h e d i m a g e r y , e a s e o f
d e f i n i t i o n , and a n i m a t e n e s s v a l u e s f o r 3 2 8 a d j e c t i v e s . Thus, i t seems t h a t
f o r nouns and a d j e c t i v e s , w h i c h a r e components o f
sentences, reliable
imagery v a l u e s can b e o b t a i n e d .
Work
soon
proceeded
s e n t e n c e s . The i m p e t u s
effects
due
controlled. If
factors,
to
for
imagery,
from
ratings
of
words
to
ratings
of
t h i s w o r k b e i n g w h e t h e r one c o u l d o b t a i n
with
such
factors
as
comprehens i b i I i t y
i m a g e r y e f f e c t s c o u l d be shown t o b e due t o o t h e r , v e r b a l
rather
than perceptual
ones,
t h e n much o f
the
theoretical
3
problem would disappear.
Subjects
in
these
studies
were
typically
a s s e s s e d f o r t h e i r a b i l i t y t o r e c o g n i z e s e m a n t i c o r w o r d i n g changes i n
concrete and abstract sentences.
Begg a n d P a i v i o ( 1 9 6 9 ) u s i n g c o m p l e t e s e n t e n c e s , found t h a t i n
c o n c r e t e s e n t e n c e s , changes i n m e a n i n g w e r e m o r e o f t e n r e c o g n i z e d t h a n
changes i n w o r d i n g . I n a b s t r a c t s e n t e n c e s , h o w e v e r , t h e r e v e r s e was t r u e ;
changes i n w o r d i n g w e r e m o r e o f t e n r e c o g n i z e d t h a n changes i n m e a n i n g .
Begg a n d P a i v i o a t t r i b u t e d t h e d i f f e r e n c e s t o t h e way i n w h i c h c o n c r e t e
and a b s t r a c t
s e n t e n c e s w e r e coded a n d s t o r e d . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e d u a l -
coding h y p o t h e s i s , c o n c r e t e s e n t e n c e s
a r e b e i n g c o d e d and s t o r e d as
n o n v e r b a l images. T h e s e images r e t a i n t h e meaning b u t n o t t h e w o r d i n g o f
t h e s e n t e n c e s . A b s t r a c t s e n t e n c e s , h o w e v e r , a r e t hought
t o be coded and
stored primarily in their verbal form.
Johnson,
Bransford, Nyberg,
& Cleary
(1972)
attributed
e f f e c t s i n t h e Begg and P a i v i o s t u d y t o t h e a b s t r a c t
the
sentences being
m o r e d i f f i c u l t t o comprehend. Johnson e t . a l . had s u b j e c t s r a t e a s u b s e t
of
t h e Begg and P a i v i o s e n t e n c e s f o r comprehensibi I i t y . S u b j e c t s
t h e a b s t r a c t s e n t e n c e s as b e i n g m o r e d i f f i c u l t
rated
t o comprehend t h a n t h e
concrete sentences.
A
number
relationship of
i n c l u d e Pezdek
of
studies
were
rated sentence
& Royer,
then performed
Imagery
to
assess
the
and c o m p r e h e n s i b i I i t y . T h e s e
(1974); Moeser, (1974); Moeser,
(1975 a, b);
K u i p e r & P a i v i o , ( 1 9 7 7 ) . These s t u d i e s b a s i c a l l y e m p l o y e d s u b s e t s o f t h e
Begg and P a i v i o sentences i n a v a r i e t y o f memory t a s k s .
Pezdek and Royer
c o n c r e t e and a b s t r a c t
(1974), arguing for
s e n t e n c e s , found t h a t
differential
storage of
r e c o g n i t i o n f o r changes i n
4
meaning in abstract
paragraph than for
s e n t e n c e s was h i g h e r
sentences without
for
s e n t e n c e s embedded i n a
the paragraph. Not
surprisingly,
p a r a g r a p h embedding i n c r e a s e d t h e c o m p r e h e n s i b i I i t y o f t h e s e n t e n c e .
Moeser
(1974) used sets of
c o n c r e t e and a b s t r a c t
sentences
e q u a t e d f o r r a t e d comprehensibi I i t y . S u b j e c t s w e r e f o u n d t o be b e t t e r a t
i d e n t i f y i n g meaning a n d w o r d i n g changes i n c o n c r e t e s e n t e n c e s
abstract
sentences, which took
significantly
longer
for
than in
subjects
to
encode and decode.
M o e s e r ( 1 9 7 5 a ) t e s t e d s u b j e c t ' s a b i l i t y t o r e c o g n i z e w o r d s used
i n s t u d y s e n t e n c e s , a n d t o r e c r e a t e s t u d y s e n t e n c e s when p r e s e n t e d w i t h
a l i s t o f words u s e d i n t h e s t u d y . The c o n c r e t e a n d a b s t r a c t s e nt e n c e s
used were equated in terms of
l e x i c a l c o m p l e x i t y and c o m p r e h e n s i b i I i t y .
O n l y t h e second t a s k o f r e c r e a t i n g s t u d y s e n t e n c e s y i e l d e d a s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n c o n c r e t e and a b s t r a c t s e n t e n c e s .
Moeser
independence o f
(1975b)
used a
recall
comprehens i b i I i t y
concrete and abstract
sentences
memory
and i m a g e r y
task
to
assess
the
e f f e c t s . She e m p l o y e d
f r o m t h e Pezdek
and Royer
set
and
embedded t h e m i n p a r a g r a p h s . C o n c r e t e s e n t e n c e s s c o r e d f o r w o r d count o r
gist recall were significantly better recalled than abstract sentences.
K u i p e r and P a i v i o ( 1 9 7 7 ) h a d s u b j e c t s r a t e c o n c r e t e and a b s t r a c t
s e n t e n c e s f o r comprehensibi I i t y . S u b j e c t s w e r e u n e x p e c t e d l y a s k e d t o g i v e
recognition confidence ratings for the rated set of sentences which were
presented
embedded
within
a
larger
set
of
comprehensibi I i ty equated, concrete sentences
sentences b o t h i n t e r m s o f c o r r e c t
sentences.
still
recognition of
correct rejection of distractor sentences.
With
exceeded abstract
r a t e d s e n t e n c e s and
5
I n sunrmary, g i v e n s e n t e n c e s e q u a t e d f o r c o m p r e h e n s i b i I i t y , one
may s t i l l f i n d i m a g e r y e f f e c t s r e g a r d l e s s o f
that
t h e t y p e o f memory t a s k s
the subjects are asked to perform: recognition, reconstruction, or
recall.
Thus
the
explanation
that
memory
effects
of
imagery
are
a c t u a l l y due t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n comprehensibi I i t y c a n be r u l e d o u t .
However,
abstract
"The
there
are
other
explanations.
Perhaps
the
usual
s e n t e n c e s i n t h e s e s e n t e n c e s seem b i z a r r e a n d u n f a m i l i a r ( e . g .
alternative
version modified
an
established
custom."). Factual
s e n t e n c e s p r o v i d e a m o r e r e a s o n a b l e c o n t e x t f o r w h i c h t o assess c o n t e n t
familiarity than the fiction-like sentences employed in previous work.
H i g h l y m e a n i n g f u l a b s t r a c t s e n t e n c e s a b o u t f a m i l i a r t o p i c s , such as "The
economic i n d i c a t o r s f o r e c a s t a d d i t i o n a l u n e m p l o y m e n t * , s h o u l d be a s s i g n e d
a c o n t e x t as e a s i l y as c o n c r e t e s e n t e n c e s . ( K i e r a s , 1 9 7 8 ) . Because c o n t e n t
f a m i l a r i t y a p p e a r s t o o f f e r an a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r some o f t h e s e
findings,
a
controlled
relationships
between
study
needs
t o be p e r f o r m e d
rated imagery,
t o assess
the
s e n t e n c e comprehens i b i l i t y ,
and
c o n t e n t fami I i a r i t y .
In order
t o do t h i s , h o w e v e r ,
s e n t e n c e memory s t i l l
several
issues with
regard
r e m a i n t o b e a d d r e s s e d . One such i s s u e i s
m e a n i n g and r e l i a b i l i t y o f
ratings of
to
the
i m a g e r y v a l u e , comprehens i b i I i t y ,
and f a m i l i a r i t y . I t may b e t h e c a s e t h a t s u b j e c t s r a t e f a m i l i a r i t y and
comprehens i b i I i t y on t h e b a s i s o f
imagery. Most
s t u d i e s employ a seven
p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e w h e r e b y s e n t e n c e s a r e r a t e d as b e i n g h i g h o r
the attribute in question. Instructions
stress
imagery
for
l o w on
rating these attributes
that
r a t i n g t h e s e n t e n c e as a w h o l e , n e e d t o b e c o n s t r u c t e d . W h i l e
v a l u e i s f a i r l y w e l l d e f i n e d , comprehens i b i I i t y i s n o t . Moeser
6
suggests
of
t h a t i n many s t u d i e s s u b j e c t s r a t e o n l y
the individual words, and not
t h e comprehens i b i I i t y
the comprehensibi I ity of
the entire
sentence.
Familiarity is
the
area of
sentence
j u s t b e g i n n i n g t o be w o r k e d w i t h e x t e n s i v e l y i n
comprehens i b i I i t y
and
r e c a l l . (Anderson, 1 9 8 1 ;
G r a e s s e r , H a u f t - S m i t h , Cohen, and P y l e s , 1 9 8 0 ; G r a e s s e r , H o f f m a n ,
and
C l a r k , 1 9 8 0 ; G r a e s s e r , 1 9 8 1 ; Johnson and K i e r a s , 1 9 8 3 ) . G e n e r a l l y ,
the
effects of
f a m i l i a r i t y o r p r i o r k n o w l e d g e a r e e q u i v o c a l . Depending on t h e
t a s k , p r i o r k n o w l e d g e can h a v e a f a c i l i t a t i v e o r d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t on
r e c a l l . Johnson a n d K i e r a s ( 1 9 8 3 ) , a r g u i n g f o r t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n - s a v i n g s
principle, found that, in two tasks conditions, familiarity did predict
reca I I .
T h i s s t u d y was p e r f o r m e d u s i n g cued i n c i d e n t a l
recall
rather
t h a n r e c o g n i t i o n memory o r f o r c e d r e c a l l . F o r c i n g s u b j e c t s t o s t u d y t h e
sentences would presumeably have distracted subjects
from the rating
t a s k . H a v i n g t h e s u b j e c t s r e c a l l a f t e r r a t i n g a l l o w s f o r an assessment
of
the ability
of
the
ratings
to predict
recall
based on
the
same
subject s.
T h i s s t u d y has been p e r f o r m e d , t h e r e f o r e , t o c l a r i f y t h e r o l e o f
r a t e d f a m i l i a r i t y , i m a g e a b i l i t y and o t h e r p o t e n t i a l f a c t o r s i n p r e d i c t i n g
cued s e n t e n c e r e c a l l f o r f a c t u a l s e n t e n c e s . Some o f
t h e f a c t o r s such as
s e n t e n c e i m a g e r y and f a m i l i a r i t y h a v e been m a n i p u l a t e d w h i l e o t h e r s ,
such as s e n t e n c e comprehensibi I i t y and s e n t e n c e a t t r i b u t e s such as
number o f
syllables in the sentence or the frequencies of
the
the words in
t h e s e n t e n c e , h a v e been c o n t r o l l e d s t a t i s t i c a l l y . I n o r d e r t o do t h i s , a
set of
factual
sentences
that
v a r i e d i n f a m i l a r i t y and i m a g e r y w e r e
developed. These sentences served as stimuli in the first section of the
experiment. The goal of
the first part of
t h e e x p e r i m e n t was t o o b t a i n
r e l i a b l e r a t i n g s o f t h e imageabi I i t y , f a m i l i a r i t y a n d comprehens i b i I i t y o f
a s e t o f 6 0 f a c t u a l s e n t e n c e s . I n t h e second p h a s e o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t , t h e
same s u b j e c t s who h a d i n i t i a l l y p e r f o r m e d t h e r a t i n g t a s k w e r e a s k e d t o
r e c a l l as much o f
t h e s e n t e n c e as t h e y c o u l d . S u b j e c t s w e r e cued f o r
t h i s i n c i d e n t i a l r e c a l l t a s k w i t h t h e s u b j e c t noun o f
had r a t e d .
the sentence they
METHOD
Subjects
S u b j e c t s w e r e r e c r u i t e d t h r o u g h t h e use o f a d v e r t i s e m e n t s and
drawn
primarily
from undergraduate basic
psychology
classes. Sixty
subjects participated in the study. Subjects received extra credit points
f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e s t u d y . A p p r o x i m a t e l y e q u a l numbers o f m a l e s a n d
females participated in the study.
Design
A completely within-subjects
varying
in
imagery
and
familiarity
d e s i g n was
e m p l o y e d . Sentences
constituted
the
experimental
m a n i p u l a t i o n . S e n t e n c e a t t r i b u t e s such a s number o f s y l l a b l e s , s e n t e n c e
t y p e , mean c o n t e n t
f r e q u e n c y and c u e f r e q u e n c y w e r e m e a s u r e d . C o n t e n t
and cue f r e q u e n c i e s w e r e o b t a i n e d by u s i n g t h e S t a n d a r d F r e q u e n c y Index
( C a r r o l l , D a v i e s , and Richman, 1 9 7 1 ) . Each s u b j e c t p r o v i d e d b o t h r a t i n g s
a n d r e c a l l responses f o r t h e s e n t e n c e s .
Materials
A set of 60 sentences of
the general
RELATION THE ADJECTIVE NOUN, w e r e u s e d i n
different
types of
f o r m : THE ADJECTIVE NOUN
the study. There were 4
s e n t e n c e s . Type 1 , r e f e r s t o t h e r e l a t i o n b e i n g t h a t
o f a t r a n s i t i v e v e r b , a s i n " P r e h i s t o r i c man used s t o n e t o o l s ' . Type 2 ,
refers
to the relation being that of
p o s s e s s i on o r
a t t r i b u t e , as
in
" A f r i c a n e l e p h a n t s h a v e l a r g e e a r s " . Type 3 , r e f e r s t o t h e r e l a t i o n b e i n g
t h a t o f as 'isa 1 1 f o r m , as i n "Rabies v a c c i n a t i o n i s a p a i n f u l p r o c e d u r e " .
8
Type 4 , r e f e r s
t o a p a s s i v e s e n t e n c e c o n s t r u c t i o n , as i n " I n t e r s t a t e
commerce i s r e g u l a t e d by t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t " .
S e n t e n c e s w e r e c o n s t r u c t e d t o v a r y s t r o n g l y i n t e r m s o f i ma ge ry
and f a m i l i a r i t y . S p e c i f i c a l l y , 1 5 s e n t e n c e s w e r e c o n s t r u c t e d f o r e a c h o f
four
cofigurations:
high
imagery-high
familarity;
low
imagery-high
familarity; high imagery-low familarity; and low imagery-low familarity.
S u b j e c t and o b j e c t nouns w e r e n o t r e p e a t e d a c r o s s t h e 6 0 s e n t e n c e s . The
actual
sentences used in
the experiment
are presented in Tables 1
through 4.
Procedure
The e x p e r i m e n t c o n s i s t e d . o f
and a cued incidental
u s i n g paper
two tasks; a sentence rating task
r e c a l l t a s k . S u b j e c t s w e r e r u n i n groups o f 1 - 1 5
a n d p e n c i l m a t e r i a l s . S u b j e c t s w e r e s e a t e d and g i v e n t h e
instructions for
t h e f i r s t phase o f
t h e e x p e r i m e n t . They w e r e i n f o r m e d
t h a t a second t a s k was r e q u i r e d . H ow e v e r, t h e y w e r e n o t i n f o r m e d as
the nature of
to
t h e second t a s k .
Rating task.
The s e n t e n c e s t o be r e a d and r a t e d w e r e p r e s e n t e d
t o s u b j e c t s on s i x s h e e t s o f p a p e r . Each s h e e t o f p a p e r h a d e a c h o f t h e
scales and the descriptors
scale printed at
for each point of
t h e t o p . This was
particular order of
t h e seven p o i n t L i k e r t
f o l l o w e d b y 1 0 s e n t e n c e s and t h e
r a t i n g s c a l e s t o be e m p l o y e d by t h e s u b j e c t . Each
s u b j e c t r e c e i v e d a d i f f e r e n t random p r e s e n t a t i o n o f
s e n t e n c e s . For e a c h
subject the order of sentence attribute rating remained constant for a l l
60 sentences. All
the different combinations of
t h e sequence o f
the
t h r e e r a t i n g s c a l e s w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d e q u a l l y . That i s , 1 0 s u b j e c t s w e r e
r e p r e s e n t e d i n e a c h o f t h e 6 a t t r i b u t e r a t i n g sequences. The s u b j e c t r e a d
10
each sentence, then rated the sentence for each of
continuing until
all
the three attributes,
6 0 s e n t e n c e s have been r a t e d f o r
each of
the
a t t r i b u t e s . The i n s t r u c t i o n s u s e d s t r e s s e d t h a t o n l y t h e r a t i n g o f
the
s e n t e n c e was i m p o r t a n t a n d t h a t t h e r e was n o t e s t a s t o any c a p a b i l i t y
of the subject.
The i n s t r u c t i o n s used
w e r e a d a p t e d f r o m t h o s e u s e d by P a i v i o
et.al. (1968) to rate imagery values of words. Specifically, subjects were
t o l d : "The Imagery r a t i n g o f a s e n t e n c e means: How e a s y o r d i f f i c u l t i s
i t t o v i s u a l i z e t h e w h o l e s e n t e n c e ? T h a t i s , how e a s y o r d i f f i c u l t i s i t
f o r you. t o f o r m a c l e a r m e n t a l p i c t u r e o f w h a t t h e s e n t e n c e i s saying?".
H i g h and l o w i m a g e r y s e n t e n c e s w e r e u s e d as e x a m p l e s t o m a r k
the end
p o i n t s o f t h e I m a g e r y s c a l e and t o fami I i a r i I i z e s u b j e c t s w i t h t h e use o f
the scale.
Similar instruction sets were
constructed for the attributes of
comprehensibiIity and familiarity. ComprehensibiIity
rating instructions
s t r e s s e d M o e s e r ' s ( 1 9 7 4 ) n o t i o n t h a t comprehensibi I i t y s h o u l d be r e l a t e d
t o how e a s y o r d i f f i c u l t i t i s t o f o r m t h e c o m p l e t e s e n t e n c e i n t o one
organized presentation; that
sentence
to
comprehend?
i s , how e a s y o r
Specifically,
difficult
subjects
were
is
the entire
told:
'The
Comprehensibi I i t y r a t i n g o f a s e n t e n c e means: How e a s y o r d i f f i c u l t i s i t
to understand the whole sentence.'
Familiarity
rating
instructions
stressed
the
subject's
prior
knowledge of, or exposure to, the material presented in the sentence.
Specifically, subjects were
s e n t e n c e means: How much o f
t o l d : "The F a m i l i a r i t y
scale
rating of
a
the information presented in the sentence
d i d you know p r i o r t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t ? " . As b e f o r e , e x a m p l e s o f h i g h and
11
low familiarity sentences were provided to set
t h e end p o i n t s o f
the
rating scale.
The i n s t r u c t i o n s a l s o s t r e s s e d t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f
sentence attribute rating separately. That
against
confusing,
say,
familiarity
and
treating each
is, subjects were cautioned
imageabiIity.
Specifically,
s u b j e c t s w e r e t o l d : "Remember t o c o n s i d e r e a c h s e n t e n c e i n t e r m s o f o n l y
one r a t i n g s c a l e a t a t i m e , and t r y n o t t o c o n f u s e t h e meanings o f t h e
imagery,
comprehensibi I i t y ,
and
familiarity
scale
ratings
of
the
sentences".
Reca11 t a s k .
incidental
recall
Subjects were given the instructions for
t h e cued,
task immediately after completing the ratings'
task.
The s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s w e r e p r e s e n t e d a s f o l l o w s . The s u b j e c t nouns o f
t h e s e n t e n c e s r a t e d i n t h e f i r s t phase o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t w e r e p r e s e n t e d
i n a l i s t on t w o s h e e t s o f p a p e r . These s u b j e c t nouns a p p e a r e d i n t h e
same o r d e r as d i d t h e s e n t e n c e s i n t h e r a t i n g t a s k . The s u b j e c t nouns
s e r v e d as cues f o r t h e i n c i d e n t a l r e c a l l t a s k .
Subjects first read the instructions regarding their task in this
phase o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t . They t h e n p r o c e e d e d t o r e c a l l , i n s e n t e n c e f o r m ,
a s much a s
t h e y c o u l d remember
about
the
to-be-recalled sentence.
A l t h o u g h t h e cues f o r t h e sen t e nc e s w e r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e same o r d e r as
t h e s e n t e n c e s a p p e a r e d i n t h e f i r s t phase o f
were free to recall
Upon c o m p l e t i o n o f
t h e s e n t e n c e s i n any o r d e r
t h e r e c a l l phase o f
d e b r i e f e d . They w e r e g i v e n a b r i e f
s t u d y and w e r e
the experiment, subjects
they cared to employ.
the experiment
subjects were
s t a t e m e n t as t o t h e p u r p o s e o f
cautioned to not relay information about
potential subjects.
the
the study to
RESULTS
The results of
first
set
addresses
manipulation of
this study can be cast
the
imagery
question of
the
into two subsets. The
validity
and familiarity. The
of
the
apriori
second set of
results
reports predicting subjects' recall.
Sentence attribute ratings
Cell
means
for
the 3
ratings
for
each of
the
familiarity conditions are shown in Table 5. It appears
ratings do not coincide with the apriori manipulation of
imagery. While the ratings for
imagery
that
x
subjects'
familiarity and
the low f ami I iari ty-low imagery and the
high familiarity-high imagery sentences appear reasonable. The other two
cells
do
not
reflect
the
expected
results.
This
is
due
to
correlations among the ratings. An intercorrelation matrix of
r a t i n g s a n d r e c a l l
manipulation
did
the
the three
i s s h o w n i n T a b l e 6 . I t a p p e a r s t h a t w h i l e t h e 2 x 2
introduce
some
variability
it
did
not
provide
orthogonality of the factors of imagery and familiarity.
Recall scores
Proportion recall for each cell of the 2 x 2 manipulation is as
follows: low f ami I iari ty-low imagery .072; low familiarity-high imagery
.379;
high fami I iari ty-low imagery .282; high familiarity-high imagery
•474. The proportion recall for all sentences is .30156.
Even though the manipulation of imagery and familiarity was not
effective, an ANOVA by Multiple Regression was performed to assess the
12
13
role of
subjects' ratings in predicting recall. The question being can
any unique
variability
could be accounted
for
by
the
imagery and
familiarity ratings? Subjects' recall was scored against a propositional
analysis of
the sentences (Bovair and Kieras, 1981). The propositional
analysis of
the sentences yielded three propositions termed; P1, P2, P3.
The PI proposition represents the relation between the object noun and
the subject noun. The P2 proposition represents the subject noun and its
modifier. The P3 proposition represents the object noun and its modifier.
This type of scoring analysis, developed in prose memory work, allows a
finer grain and more reliable evaluation of
the type and amount of
material that the subject recalls than do the methods typically used in
the memory studies reviewed above.
The dependent variable used in the regression analysis was the
proportion of propositions recalled (PRO) per sentence, for each subject.
Thus, N=60 sentences x 60 subjects, for a total of 3600. Possible values
were .000, .333, .667 and 1.00, depending upon whether
propositions were
subjects'
mean
recalled. Independent
recall,
the
imagery
variables
(I),
0, 1, 2, or
include
familiarity
(F),
3
SUBX, each
and
comprehensibi I ity (C) ratings, and the interactions formed by imagery x
familiarity
(IMFAM),
by
imagery
x
comprehensibi I ity
(IMCOM),
by
familiarity x comprehensibi I ity (FAMCOM) and by imagery x familiarity x
comprehens ibi I i ty (IFC).
The results of the regression analysis are shown in Table 7. The
Table shows the steps at which each predictor variable was entered and
the R2 at each step. The coefficients shown are those from the final
regression equation including all the entered variables. The reported F
14
values
represent
the
"F-to-remove", which provides
signifigance of the variable
variable to enter
test
for
the
under the condition where it was the last
the equation. The standardized regression coefficients
allow comparisons of
As
a
the relative importance of each variable.
shown previously,
I
and F are
substantially
(r=.6739). However, the regression analyses allows one
correlated
to assess any
effects for F and to assess the variance accounted for by F, given the
presence of the other factors.
As
shown
in
Table
7, approximately
in accounted
for
by
the
22 of
final
the
variance
in
subjects'
recall
equation. The most
important
factor being I, followed by F and C. I accounts for 8 of
variance, while F and C uniquely account for less than 1 of
None of
the
interactions
were
significant.
Thus, while
the
the variance.
there
are
significant effect due to F and C, neither variable adds much by way of
unique variance.
In an effort to see more clearly the separate effects of imagery
and familiarity in predicting subjects' recall, an additional ANCWA by
Multiple regression was performed. This analysis
forms the beginning of
what is termed a commonality analysis. The regression analysis is shown
in Table 8. This regression is identical to the one reported above with
the exception of the order in which the variables I, F) C were entered
into the equation. For this analysis, F was entered into the equation,
followed by C and I. All
three effects were significant. Again none of
the interactions were significant. Entering F fiTSt accounts for 6 of
variance, C and I enter
to account
the
for less than 1 of unique variance.
Thus, the results indicate that for these sentences, there is probably no
difference between imagery and familiarity and so one would not expect
to find differences for C because the correlations between C and the
other ratings are also high.
An unsuccessful attempt was made to use subjects' ratings of
the sentences to orthogona I ize imagery and familiarity. Mean ratings of
imagery and familiarity for the 60 sentences were plotted. The hope was
that
the sentences, as they were rated by subjects, could be used to
form a subset of
sentences that would serve to orthogonaIize imagery
and familiarity. Again, imagery and familiarity were so confounded that
the quadrants on the negative diagonal (high imagery-low familiarity and
low imagery-high familiarity) are essentially empty.
DISCUSSION
One question that this study sought to answer had to do with how
subjects
would
rate
simple
factual
sentences
for
imageabi I i ty,
familiarity, and comprehensibi lity. Specifically, the question had to do
with whether subjects could rate one of
the above attributes separately
from the other
two. The results show that 3 ratings are substantially
correlated. At
least
four possibilities are involved here. One is
that
imagery, familiarity, and comprehensibi I i ty are very subject-specific and
that
apriori, essentially
intuitive notions of
how
to orthogonalize
imagery and familiarity are doomed to failure. Another possibility is
that
subjects
rated
something other
than
imagery,
familiarity, and
comprehens ibi I i ty, or rated familiarity and comprehens ibi I i ty relative to
imagery. Alternatively, familiarity and imagery may, in fact, behave this
way. One interesting fact is that all sentences, whether high or low in
imageabi lity
or
familiarity,
were
rated
as
being
reasonably
comprehens ible. As shown in Table 5, all cells are along the midpoint of
the comprehens ibi I i ty scale.
From the ratings analyses it would appear that the familiarityimagery manipulation, while not
variability across
orthogonal, did provide a
the sentences. The
cell means
for
range of
the familiarity
rating show that subjects did change their estimate of how familiar a
sentence was depending upon the apriori manipulation of imagery.
Differential
recall was
found for
the various combinations of
imagery and familiarity. However, given the confounding of
16
imagery and
17
familiarity it is difficult
to see what
to make of
this. That is, one
cannot tell from these results if a sentence is remembered better the
sentence is more imageable or that
the words in the sentence are more
fami liar, or both.
This study casts serious doubt on the feasibility of manipulating
imagery and familiarity in simple factual sentences. The problems found
here may be reflective of" the field of
investigating imagery effects in
recall for sentences. Katz (1983), reports that even when an attempt is
made to assess subjects' ability to image on an individual
level using
imagery tests, these measures fail to predict cognitive task performance.
Katz
attributes
this
failing
to
researchers
not
considering
such
questions as the theoretical nature of the construct being used and not
applying the needed
techniques
to ensure item homogeneity, construct
content saturation, and control of response bias.
Theoretical
notion
regarding
the
interplay
of
imagery
and
familiarity are not available. However, one can believe that sentences
can be constructed that are high in imagery and very familiar. Likewise,
one can believe that it would be difficult
to have highly imageable
sentences
not
about
fami I iarity-low
words
imagery
or
concepts
sentences
one
is
familiar with. High
are probably possible, but
it
is
problematic whether one can have highly imageable sentences that are riot
familiar. One would also have to distinguish between the familiarity of
words and the familiarity of
the facts conveyed by the sentence.
The question then becomes, how would one validate constructs
such as imagery and familiarity? It seems from the results of this study
that one can not validate subjects' ratings against apriori manipulations
of
sentences
thought
to vary
in imagery and familiarity. For example,
subjects may be familiar with every word in a particular sentence and
not be familiar with the concept communicated by the sentence (e.g. Sand
wasps build sleeping burrows). In addition, it may be that subjects use
differential
strategies
with
regard
to
imagery
and
familiarity
in
performing rating and recalI tasks.
Given that one is
reasonably certain that
something is
gained theoretically from trying to separate the effects of
to be
familiarity
and imagery for sentences, the fol lowing may be the way to procede. A
pool of
sentences
that samples a broad range of
then be constructed. Familiarity
ratings
content areas could
could be validated in some
respect using the Standard Frequency Index. This index would provide, for
each word in the sentence, how frequently such a word appears in print.
It would not address
the question as
to how familiar
is
the concept
conveyed by the sentence.
Sentences could then be rated by a large number of
Subjects would rate separately the imageabi li ty, or
sentence.
Such
controls
to
ratings
eliminate
would have
response
to be
bias
subjects.
familiarity of
the
gathered with appropriate
and
to
better
ensure
homogeneity. Selection could then be made
from
sentences
familiarity manipulation.
to form the orthogonal
Subjects not
either
imagery,
involved with the ratings
a cued incidental
or
the pool
of
item
rated
task could then be run using
forced recall
task. Even given such a
scenario, it is difficult to see how one would generalize the findings to
other sentences.
In conclusion, several points can be made. One point is that what
is meant
by
imagery, familiarity, and comprehensibi I ity needs
to be
clarified theoretically. Secondly, apriori manipulations of such aspects
of sentences as imagery and familiarity need to be based on reliable and
psychomet ricaIly sound subject ratings. Thirdly, attempts should be made
to validate ratings on the basis of other aspects of
some independent procedure. The nature of
such validation procedures
would presumeably hinge on theoretical notions as
function
of
imagery,
familiarity,
and
comprehending and recall of sentences.
the sentences, or by
to the meaning and
comprehensibi I ity
in
the
20
Table 1
Sentences used in Experiment
Low Familiarity-Low Imagery sentences
The economic indicators forecast additional unemployment.
The British Empire relied on naval strength.
Subjective contours contain incomplete figures.
Loan words aid linguistic reconstruction.
Natural selection explains biological diversity.
Population genetics studies phenotypic frequencies.
Maritime activities established the Hanseatic League.
An emotional disturbance may cause childhood stuttering.
Cognitive Psychology studies concept formation.
Quantum mechanics utilizes differential equations.
Structural anthropology studies folklore variants.
Factorial designs provide for hypothesis testing.
Microwave transmission extends broadcast coverage.
Disease taxonomies improve diagnostic accuracy.
Predicate calculus is a form of symbolic logic.
21
Table 2
Sentences used in Experiment
Low Familiarity-High Imagery sentences.
The DNA molecule is depicted as a double helix.
Atmospheric dust often produces spectacular sunsets.
Rabies vaccination is a painful procedure.
Playing cards are made of pressed cardboard.
Light bulbs have tungsten filaments.
Keyboard instruments have different mechanisms.
The ancient Hellenes used bronze swords.
X-ray stars may be black holes.
The camera obscura uses a pinhole aperture.
The largest mollusk is the Giant Clam.
Carnivorous plants can catch aquatic insects.
Sand wasps construct sleeping burrows.
Wild bobcats have a reclusive nature.
Potato leaves contain a deadly poison.
Target archers use fiberglass arrows.
22
Table 3
Sentences used in Experiment
High Familiarity-Low Imagery sentences
Modern agriculture increased food production.
Food processing increases consumer costs.
The Italian Renaissance encouraged intellectual curiosity.
Many people oppose nuclear power.
Computer programming is a skilled occupation.
Electron microscopy reveals minute details.
Weather forecasting is a developing science.
Intelligence quotients predict scholastic achievement.
High school classes include American history.
State senates enact local legislation.
Legal gambling includes state lotteries.
Primitive Christanity was a persecuted religion.
Political beliefs are assessed with opinion polls.
Interstate commerce is regulated by the federal bureaucracy.
Democratic traditions foster personal freedoms.
23
Table 4
Sentences used in Experiment
High Familiarity-High Imagery sentences
Annual flooding occurs in the NiIe VaI ley.
Rainbow features include multiple arcs.
Placental mammals bear live young.
Pickup trucks carry large payloads.
Modern zoos are protecting endangered animals.
Hard candy is largely processed sugar.
Modern factories use assembly lines.
India ink is a black pigment.
Hiking boots have thick soles.
Vehicle emissions contribute to air pollution.
African elephants have large ears.
Spaghetti sauce is made from ripe tomatos.
Prehistoric man used stone tools.
Drive-in theatres have concession stands.
Track events include marathon running.
24
Table 5
Cell means for sentence ratings
Low I mag
Low Fam
Comprehensibi I ity
Fami I iar i ty
Imageabi I ity
4.14
3.27
3.20
Low I mag
High Fam
5.89
4.90
5.09
High Imag
Low Fam
5.38
5.02
3.90
High Imag
High Fam
6.41
6.28
5.88
Table 6
Correlation matrix for sentence ratings and recall
N=3600
I
i
F
C
Recall
TTOO
F
.6739
1.00
C
.6953
.6812
1.00
Recal I
.2667
.2668
.2933
1.000
Table 7
Regression analysis of Subjects' recall (N=3600)
Var iable
SUBX
I
F
C
IMFAM
IMCOM
FAMCOM
IFC
# P< .01
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
f ina 1
coeff.
.027
.035
.021
-.00042
.00031
-.00428
.0008
final std.
coeff.
.145
.189
.013
-.184
.013
-.184
.002
R2
.133
.212
.218
.2217
.2220
.2220
.2223
.2224
F
361.96
29.14
15.29
1.30
1.00
0.20
0.69
#
#
#
Table 8
Regression analysis of Subjects' recall (N=3600)
Var iable
SUBX
F
C
1
IMFAM
IMCOM
FAMCOM
IFC
# P< .01
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
f ina I
coeff.
.035
.021
.027
-.00421
.00031
-.00428
.00082
final std.
coeff.
.189
.013
.145
-.184
.013
-.184
.002
R2
.133
.1949
.2094
.2217
.2220
.2220
.2223
.2224
F
277.57
65.91
56.88
1.30
1.00
.20
.69
#
#
#
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, J. R.,
Language, Memory, and Thought. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Assoc. Publishers, 1976.
Anderson, J. R., Arguments concerning mental representations. Psychological Review, 1978,
85(4), 249-277.
Anderson, J. R., Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. San Francisco, Calif.: W. H.
Freeman and Co., 1980.
Anderson, J. R., Effects of prior knowledge on memory for new information. Memory and
Cognition, 1981, 9, 237-246, 1981.
Anderson, J. R., The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University
Press., 1983.
Aaronson, D., & Scarborough, H. S., Performance theories for sentence coding: Some
quantative evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 1976, 2(1), 56-70.
Barclay, J. R., The role of comprehension in remembering sentences. Cognitive Psychology,
1973, 4, 229-254.
Begg, I., Imagery and organization in memory: Instructional effects. Memory and Cognition,
1978, 6(2), 174-183.
Begg, I., & Paivio, A., Concreteness and imagery in sentence meaning. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8, 821-827.
Begg, I., & Clark, J. M., Contextual imagery in meaning and memory. Memory and
Cognition, 1975, 3(2), 117-122.
Berrian, R. W., Metzler, D. P., Kroll, N. E., & Clark-Meyers, G. M. f Estimates of imagery,
ease of definition, and animateness for 328 Adjectives.
Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1979, 5(4), 435-447.
Bovair, S., & Kieras, D. E., A Guide to Prepositional Analysis for Research on Technical
Prose. Technical Report No. 8, University of Arizona, July, 1981.
Bowen, C., & Standing, L., Imagery and meaningfulness ratings of sentences: Reliability and
relationships to learning. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1976, 42, 479-483.
28
29
Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J., The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology,
1971 2,331-350.
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K., Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some
investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 1972, 11, 717-726.
Bransford, J. D., & McCarrel, N., A sketch of a cognitive approach to comprehension:
Some thoughts on what it means to comprehend. In D. Palermo and W. Weimer
(Ecfe.) Cognition and Symbolic Processes. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Publishers, 1974.
Cairns, H. S., & Kamerman, J., Lexical information processing during sentence
comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1975, 14, 170-179.
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., & Richman, B., Word Frequency Book. New York: American
Heritage Publishing Co., 1971
Christian, J., Bickley, W., Tarka, M., & Clayton, K., Measures of free recall of 900 English
nouns: Correlations with imagery, concreteness,
meaningfulness, and frequency.
Memory and Cognition, 1978, 6(4), 379-390.
Clark, H. H., Cohen, J., Smith, J. E. K., & Keppel, G., Discussion of Wilke and Church's
comments. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1976, 15, 257-266.
Elmes, D. G., & Thompson, J. B., Magnitude estimation of imagery. Bulletin of the
Psychonomic Society, 1976, 8(4), 343-344.
Forster, K. W., & Dickinson, R.G., More on the language as fixed effects fallacy: MonteCarlo estimates of error rates for F1, F2, F', and min F'. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 1976, 15, 135-142.
Foss, D. J., & Harwood, D. A., Memory for sentences: Implications for human memory.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1975, 14, 1-16.
Franks, J., Toward understanding understanding. In D. Palermo and W. Weimer (Eds.)
Cognition and Symbolic Processes. Hillsdale N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Publishers, 1974.
Graesser, A. C., Prose Comprehension beyond the Word. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1981.
Graesser, A. C., Hauft-Smith, K., Cohen, A. D., & Pyles L. D., Advanced oulines,
familiarity, and text genre on retention of prose. Journal of Experimental
Education, 1980, 40, 281-290.
Graesser, A. C., Hoffman, N. L. & Clark, L. F., Structural components of reading time.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1980, 19, 135-151.
Greenwald, A. G., Within-subjects design: To use or not to use? Psychological Bulletin,
1976, 83(2), 314-320.
30
Harris G., Beeg, I., & Mittreer, J., On the relation between frequency estimates and
recognition memory. Memory and Cognition, 1980, 8(1), 99-104.
Hayes-Roth, F. f Distinguishing theories of representation: A critique of Anderson's
"Arguments concerning mental imagery" Psychological Review, 1979, 86(4),
376-382.
Holyoak, K. J., The role of imagery in the evaluation of sentences: Imagery or Semantic
factors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974, 13, 163-166.
Johnson, W. & Kieras, D. E., Representation-saving effects of prior knowledge in memory
for simple technical prose. Memory and Cognition, 1983, 11(5), 456-466.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A., The relation between comprehending and remembering
some complex sentences. Memory and Cognition, 1976, 4(3), 318-322.
Katz, A. N., What does it mean to be a high imager? In J.C. Yuille (Ed.)., Imagery,
Memory, and Cognition Essays in Honor of Allan Paivio, Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1983,
Kieras, D., Beyond pictures and words: Alternative information processing models for
imagery effects in verbal memory. Psychological Bulletin, 1978, 85(3), 532-554.
Kintsch, W., The Representation of Meaning in Memory. Hillsdale N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Assoc. Publishers, 1974.
Klecka, W. R., Discriminant Analysis, Sage University Paper series on Quantitative
Applications in the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills, Calif. 1980.
Kosslyn, S. M., Information representation in visual imagery. Cognitive Psychology, 1975, 7,
341-370.
Kosslyn, S. M., Can imagery be distinguished from other forms of internal representation?
Evidence from sturfes of information retrieval times. Memory and Cognition, 1976,
4(3), 291-297.
Kosslyn, S. M., & Pomerantz, J. R., Imagery, propositions, and the form of internal
representation. Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9(1), 52-76.
Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N., Computational Anaysis of Present Day English Language.
Providence, R. I.: Brown University Press, 1967.
Kuiper, N. A., & Paivio, A., Incidental recognition memory for concrete and abstract
sentences equated for comprehensibility. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1977,
9(4), 247-249.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J., Toward a theory of automatic information processing in
reading. Cognitive Psychology, 1974, 6, 293-324.
Lawson, R., Representation of individual sentences and holistic ideas. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1977, 3(1), 1-9.
Loftus, G. R., On interpretation of interactions. Memory and Cognition, 1978, 6(3),
312-319.
Marschark, M., & Paivio, A., Integrative processing of concrete and abstract sentences.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1977, 16, 217-231.
Masson, M., Inferentially cued recall of concrete and abstract sentences. Program on
cognitive factors in human learning and memory. Report
5, Institute for the study
of intellectual behavior. University of Colorado, 1977.
Moeser, S. D., Memory for meaning and wording in concrete and abstract
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974, 13, 682-697.
sentences.
Moeser, S. D., The integration of verbal ideas. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1975, 29(2),
106-123. (a).
Moeser, S. M., Memory for language organization in concrete and abstract
Memory and Cognition, 1975, 3(5), 560-568. (b).
sentences.
Moeser, S. M., Effect of questions on prose unitization. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1978, 4(4), 290-303.
Paivio, A., Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York: Holt Rinehart, and Winston, 1971
Paivio, A., The relationship between verbal and perceptual codes. In E. C. Carterette & M,
P. Friedman (Ecfc.) Handbook of Perception vol. 8 Perceptual Coding. Palo Alto,
Calif: Academic Press, 1978.
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A., Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness
values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph, 1968,
76(1,pt.2).
Pedhauzer, E. J., Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction,
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1982.
Pezdek, K. & Royer, J. M., The role of comprehension in learning concrete and abstract
sentences, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974,13, 551-58.
Potter, M. C., Valian, V. V. & Faulconer, B. A., Representation of a sentence and its
pragmatic implications: verbal, imagistic, or abstract? Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 1977, 16, 1-12.
Pylyshyn, Z. W., Validating computational models: a critique of Anderson's indeterminancy
of representation claim. Psychological Review, 1979, 86(4), 183-394.
Richardson, J. T. E., Imageability and concreteness. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society.
1 9 7 6 ' Z111' 429-431.
Roediger, H. L., Implicit and explicit memory models. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,
1979, 13(6), 339-342.
32
Rowe, E. J., Schurr, B., & Meisinger, D. ( Comprehensibility ratings of concrete and abstract
sentences. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1978, 1(1), 49-52.
Santa, J. L., Miller, J.J., & Shaw, M., Using Quasi-F to prevent alpha inflation due to
stimulus variation. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 84(1), 37-45.
Shoben, E. J., Wescort, K. T., & Smith, E. E., Sentence verification and the semanticepisodic distinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and
Memory, 1978, 4(4), 304-317.
Smith, F., Understanding Reading. New York: Holt, 1971.
Tatsuoka, M. M., Discriminant Analysis: The study of Group Differences, Selected Topics in
Advanced Statistics An elememtary Approach., Champaign, III.: The Institute for
Personality and Ability Testing, 1970.
Tatsuoka, M. M., The General Linear Model: The 'New* Trend in the Analysis of Variance,
Selected Topics in Advanced Statistics An Elementary Approach, - Champaign, III.:
The Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1970.
Thorndyke, P. W., Conceptual complexity and imagery in comprehension and memory.
journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1975,16, 359-369.
Till, R. E., Cormak, F. R. & Prince, S., Effects of orienting tasks on sentence comprehension
and cued recall. Memory and Cognition. 1977, 5(1), 59-66.
Wannemacher, J. T., Processing strategies in sentence comprehension. Memory and
Cognition, 1976, 4(1), 48-52.
Wilke, E, L., & Church, J. D», Comments on Clark's The language-as fixed-effects-fallacy.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1976, 15, 249-255.
Winer, B. J., Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co., 1971.
Yuille, J. C., The crisis in theories of mental imagery. In J.C. Yuille (Ed.)., Imagery,
Memory, and Cognition Essays in Honor of Allan Paivio, Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1983,